Risk Priority Number: A Measuring Instrument for Hygienic Management on Broiler Farms, Reflecting Their Campylobacter Status
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Results and Discussion
Hygiene factor | Classification (1–5) | Weight |
---|---|---|
collection system | 5 = harvester crew without contact to other poultry farms | 100 |
4 = harvester crew exclusively visits one farm per day | ||
3 = harvester crew visits > 1 farm per day | ||
2 = harvester crew visits > 1 farm per day, use of chicken catching machine | ||
1 = harvester crew two or more plants per day, no change of cloth, no correct cleaning and disinfection of the crew | ||
thinning frequency | 5 = no partial slaughter | 100 |
3 = 2 days of partial depopulation | ||
1 = ≥3 days of collection | ||
other animals or pets on/nearby the farm | 5 = no other animals (poultry) and pets on and nearby the farm | 100 |
4 = no other animals within 100 m | ||
3 = farmer keeps pets, no livestock | ||
2 = livestock at the farm, pets; | ||
1 = livestock in the same stable (building), more pets | ||
water supply | 5 = mains water | 10 |
4 = own spring water | ||
3 = ground water | ||
2 = own spring water, contaminated with E. coli/Enterococci | ||
1 = ground water, contaminated with E. coli/Enterococci | ||
pest security | 5 = stable, incl. hygiene slice and anteroom, stable environment protected, fly control | 100 |
4 = stable protected; | ||
3 = grids in need of repair; | ||
2 = inadequate | ||
1 = bad condition | ||
number of stables | 5 = only 1 stable at the farm; | 10 |
4 = 2 stables, separated, distance ≥10 m, | ||
3 = 2 units in one stable | ||
2 = more than 2 units in one stable | ||
1 = 2 or more stables at the farm, 2 or more units in the stable | ||
stable environment | 5 = completely fortified | 10 |
4 = about 30% fortified, 70% gravel, gras | ||
3 = about 30% fortified, 70% field, gravel, gras | ||
2 = marginally fortified, bushes and plant growth | ||
1 = marginally fortified, plant growth, storage of materials and waste | ||
structural/ technical stable condition | 5 = new stable (younger than 10 years), good condition | 10 |
4 = ≥10 years, renovated, good condition | ||
3 = new stable, moderate condition | ||
2 = new stable, bad condition | ||
1 = old stable, bad condition | ||
ventilation system | 5 = side wall—ceiling ventilation, high outlet | 10 |
4 = side wall—ceiling ventilation, low outlet | ||
3 = side wall in/out ventilation, clean outside | ||
2 = side wall in/out ventilation, bushes outside | ||
1 = side wall in/out ventilation, bushes, storage of materials and waste outside | ||
chicken watering equipment | 5 = nipple drinker with tray, bedding material dry | 10 |
4 = nipple drinker with tray, bedding material nearly dry | ||
3 = nipple drinker with tray/round drinker, bedding material moist | ||
2 = nipple drinker with tray/round drinker, bedding material wet | ||
1 = round drinker, bedding material wet, litter flour plates | ||
feeding | 5 = closed supply system, feed delivery, protected area | 10 |
4 = closed supply system, feed delivery, no protected area | ||
3 = Silo, covered feed self-transport | ||
2 = open feed container, covered feed self-transport | ||
1 = open feed container, feed self-transport | ||
hygiene sluice, barrier, changing room | 5 = hygiene sluice present, changing room clean, hygiene barrier outside of farm | 100 |
4 = changing room clean, proper disinfectant mat, no hygiene sluice | ||
3 = changing room untidy, proper disinfectant mat, no hygiene barrier | ||
2 = improper changing room, improper disinfectant mat | ||
1 = no anteroom existent, no disinfectant mat existent | ||
litter materials | 5 = dry corn cob, soft cells or straw pellets | 100 |
4 = straw or food shavings, dry | ||
3 = straw or food shavings, slightly moist | ||
3 = straw or food shavings, moist | ||
1 = straw or food shavings moist and constantly crusted | ||
cleaning and disinfection of the stable | 5 = complete manure removal, dry cleaning, hot water cleaning, spray disinfection in no wet area, pat dry | 100 |
4 = dry cleaning, cold water cleaning, disinfection, dampish-dry | ||
3 = dry cleaning elusive, cold water cleaning, disinfection, dampish-dry | ||
2 = dry cleaning elusive, cold water cleaning, disinfection only in wet area | ||
1 = no correct litter removal, dry cleaning, disinfection only in wet area | ||
stable cloth | 5 = own clothes and footwear for farmer and visitor, correct change | 10 |
4 = own clothes and footwear for farmer (not for visitor), correct change | ||
3 = own clothes and footwear for farmer, insufficiently change | ||
2 = own stable cloths dirty, footwear dirty, | ||
1 = no stable clothes and footwear, no change | ||
hygiene equipment for personal | 5 = shower, sink properly functioning & clean, detergents and disinfectants ok | 1 |
4 = sink properly functioning & clean, detergents and disinfectants ok | ||
3 = sink properly functioning but dirty, no detergents and disinfectants | ||
2 = only cold water, dirty, detergents and disinfectants | ||
1 = no shower, sink, no detergents and disinfectants | ||
litter storage | 5 = closed, protected, clean | 10 |
4 = closed, protected, little bit dirty | ||
3 = closed, not protected, dirty | ||
2 = roofed, accessible for rodents, birds | ||
1 = largely unprotected area, other equipment materials and waste closely | ||
manure storage | 5 = distance ≥ 1 km, fortified | 10 |
4 = 500 m–1000 m | ||
3 = 100 m–500 m | ||
2 = 20 m–100 m | ||
1 = directly beside the stable |
Cecal category | Campylobacter results | Number of farms in this category (%) |
---|---|---|
1 | all broiler flocks positive: all batches of each flock positive | 15 (28.3%, CI 18–42) |
2 | ≤50% of the first depopulation are negative
| 12 (22.6%, CI 13–36) |
3 | ≤50% of the first depopulation are negative
| 12 (22.6%, CI 13–36) |
4 | >50% of the first depopulation are negative; | 10 (18.9%, CI 11–31) |
5 | all broiler flocks negative: all batches of each flock negative | 4 (7.5%, CI 3–18) |
2.1. Hygiene Factors
2.2. Risk Priority Number
2.2.1. Descriptive Statistics of the RPN
2.2.2. Correlation of RPN and Campylobacter Status
3. Experimental Section
3.1. Campylobacter Status of the Flocks
3.1.1. Microbiological Methods
3.1.2. Classification of the Campylobacter Results
3.2. Hygiene Factors
3.3. Risk Priority Number
3.4. Statistics
4. Conclusions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). ECDC The European Union summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and food-borne outbreaks in 2011. EFSA J. 2013, 11, 3129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jelovcan, S.; Kornschober, C. Jahresbericht Campylobacter 2012; Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety: Graz, Austria, 2013.
- Yu, R.K.; Usuki, S.; Ariga, T. Ganglioside molecular mimicry and its pathological roles in Guillain-Barre syndrome and related diseases. Infect. Immun. 2006, 74, 6517–6527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hannu, T. Campylobacter-triggered reactive arthritis: A population-based study. Rheumatology 2002, 41, 312–318. [Google Scholar]
- EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ). Scientific Opinion on Quantification of the risk posed by broiler meat to human campylobacteriosis in the EU. EFSA J. 2010, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scientific Committee of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI). Recommendations for a Practical Control Programme for Campylobacter in the Poultry Production and Slaughter Chain; Food Safety Authority of Ireland: Dublin, Ireland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Vellinga, A. The dioxin crisis as experiment to determine poultry-related campylobacter enteritis. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2002, 8, 19–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, N.J.; Hiett, K.L.; Alfredsson, G.A.; Kristinsson, K.G.; Reiersen, J.; Hardardottir, H.; Briem, H.; Gunnarsson, E.; Georgsson, F.; Lowman, R.; et al. Campylobacter spp. in Icelandic poultry operations and human disease. Epidemiol. Infect. 2003, 130, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mullner, P.; Jones, G.; Noble, A.; Spencer, S.E.F.; Hathaway, S.; French, N.P. Source attribution of food-borne zoonoses in New Zealand: A modified Hald model. Risk Anal. 2009, 29, 970–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheppard, S.K.; Jolley, K.A.; Maiden, M.C.J. A gene-by-gene approach to bacterial population genomics: Whole genome MLST of Campylobacter. Genes 2012, 3, 261–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strachan, N.J.C.; Gormley, F.J.; Rotariu, O.; Ogden, I.D.; Miller, G.; Dunn, G.M.; Sheppard, S.K.; Dallas, J.F.; Reid, T.M.S.; Howie, H.; et al. Attribution of Campylobacter infections in northeast Scotland to specific sources by use of multilocus sequence typing. J. Infect. Dis. 2009, 199, 1205–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newell, D.G.; Fearnley, C. Sources of Campylobacter colonization in broiler chickens. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2003, 69, 4343–4351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sahin, O.; Kobalka, P.; Zhang, Q. Detection and survival of Campylobacter in chicken eggs. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2003, 95, 1070–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EFSA. Scientific Opinion on Campylobacter in broiler meat production: Control options and performance objectives and/or targets at different stages of the food chain. EFSA J. 2011, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Gerwe, T.J.W.M.; Bouma, A.; Jacobs-Reitsma, W.F.; van den Broek, J.; Klinkenberg, D.; Stegeman, J.A.; Heesterbeek, J.A.P. Quantifying transmission of Campylobacter spp. among broilers. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 71, 5765–5770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pölzler, T.; Wagner, M.; Slaghuis, J.; Schleicher, C.; Köfer, J. Rapid monitoring of Campylobacter in high-shedding flocks for targeted disease control. J. Food Prot. 2012, 75, 1835–1838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bouwknegt, M.; van de Giessen, A.W.; Dam-Deisz, W.D.C.; Havelaar, A.H.; Nagelkerke, N.J.D.; Henken, A.M. Risk factors for the presence of Campylobacter spp. in Dutch broiler flocks. Prev. Vet. Med. 2004, 62, 35–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansson, I.; Engvall, E.O.; Vågsholm, I.; Nyman, A. Risk factors associated with the presence of Campylobacter-positive broiler flocks in Sweden. Prev. Vet. Med. 2010, 96, 114–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Humphrey, T.; Paulsen, P.; Pfeifer, A.; Smulders, F.J.M. Campylobacter as the main zoonotic pathogen in poultry and strategies for its control. Vet. Med. Austria 2012, 99, 330–336. [Google Scholar]
- Newell, D.G.; Elvers, K.T.; Dopfer, D.; Hansson, I.; Jones, P.; James, S.; Gittins, J.; Stern, N.J.; Davies, R.; Connerton, I.; et al. Biosecurity-based interventions and strategies to reduce Campylobacter spp. on poultry farms. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2011, 77, 8605–8614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klein, G. Interventionsmaßnahmen gegen Campylobacter in der Primärproduktion und in der Geflügelfleischgewinnung. Archiv für Lebensmittelhygiene 2010, 61, 108–111. [Google Scholar]
- Nather, G.; Alter, T.; Martin, A.; Ellerbroek, L. Analysis of risk factors for Campylobacter species infection in broiler flocks. Poult. Sci. 2009, 88, 1299–1305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berndtson, E.; Danielsson-Tham, M.-L.; Engvall, A. Campylobacter incidence on a chicken farm and the spread of Campylobacter during the slaughter process. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 1996, 32, 35–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amtliche Veterinärnachrichten—Nr. 06/2013 vom 19. Juli 2013, GZ. 74.200/0024-II/B/10/2013; Ministry of Health: Vienna, Austria, 2008.
- International Standard Analysis Techniques for System Reliability—Procedure for Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA); IEC 60812:2006; International Electrotechnical Commission: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
- Aldridge, J.R.; Dole, B.G. Managing Quality, 4th ed.; Dole, B.G., Ed.; Blackwell Pub.: Malden, MA, USA, 2003; pp. 389–405. [Google Scholar]
- EFSA. Scientific report of EFSA: Analysis of the baseline survey on the prevalence of Campylobacter in broiler batches and of Campylobacter and Salmonella on broiler carcasses in the EU, 2008 Part A: Campylobacter and Salmonella prevalence estimates. EFSA J. 2010, 8, 1503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jorgensen, F.; Ellis-Iversen, J.; Rushton, S.; Bull, S.A.; Harris, S.A.; Bryan, S.J.; Gonzalez, A.; Humphrey, T.J. Influence of season and geography on Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli subtypes in housed broiler flocks reared in Great Britain. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2011, 77, 3741–3748. [Google Scholar]
- Matt, M.; Weyermair, K.; Pless, P. Statistical Analysis of Risk Factors for Campylobacter Colonization at the Farm Level. In Proceedings of the XVth International Congress in Animal Hygiene (ISAH) Congress, Vienna, Austria, 3–7 July 2011; pp. 765–767.
- Ellis-Iversen, J.; Ridley, A.; Morris, V.; Sowa, A.; Harris, J.; Atterbury, R.; Sparks, N.; Allen, V. Persistent environmental reservoirs on farms as risk factors for Campylobacter in commercial poultry. Epidemiol. Infect. 2012, 140, 916–924. [Google Scholar]
- Hald, B.; Skovgård, H.; Bang, D.D.; Pedersen, K.; Dybdahl, J.; Jespersen, J.B.; Madsen, M. Flies and Campylobacter infection of broiler flocks. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2004, 10, 1490–1492. [Google Scholar]
- Sommer, H.M.; Heuer, O.E.; Sørensen, A.I.V.; Madsen, M. Analysis of factors important for the occurrence of Campylobacter in Danish broiler flocks. Prev. Vet. Med. 2013, 111, 100–111. [Google Scholar]
- Verordnung der Bundesministerin für Gesundheit, Familie und Jugend über Gesundheitskontrollen und Hygienemaßnahmen in Geflügel-Betrieben; BGBl. II Nr. 100/2007; Ministry of Health: Vienna, Austria, 2007.
- Hald, B.; Sommer, H.M.; Skovgård, H. Use of fly screens to reduce Campylobacter spp. introduction in broiler houses. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2007, 13, 1951–1953. [Google Scholar]
- Hue, O.; Le Bouquin, S.; Laisney, M.-J.; Allain, V.; Lalande, F.; Petetin, I.; Rouxel, S.; Quesne, S.; Gloaguen, P.-Y.; Picherot, M.; et al. Prevalence of and risk factors for Campylobacter spp. contamination of broiler chicken carcasses at the slaughterhouse. Food Microbiol. 2010, 27, 992–999. [Google Scholar]
- Ridley, A.M.; Morris, V.K.; Cawthraw, S.A.; Ellis-Iversen, J.; Harris, J.A.; Kennedy, E.M.; Newell, D.G.; Allen, V.M. Longitudinal molecular epidemiological study of thermophilic Campylobacters on one conventional broiler chicken farm. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2011, 77, 98–107. [Google Scholar]
- Berrang, M.E.; Northcutt, J.K.; Cason, J.A. Recovery of Campylobacter from broiler feces during extended storage of transport cages. Poult. Sci. 2004, 83, 1213–1217. [Google Scholar]
- Ridley, A.; Morris, V.; Gittins, J.; Cawthraw, S.; Harris, J.; Edge, S.; Allen, V. Potential sources of Campylobacter infection on chicken farms: Contamination and control of broiler-harvesting equipment, vehicles and personnel: Sources of Campylobacter associated with flock thinning. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2011, 111, 233–244. [Google Scholar]
- Xiao, N.; Huang, H.-Z.; Li, Y.; He, L.; Jin, T. Multiple failure modes analysis and weighted risk priority number evaluation in FMEA. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2011, 18, 1162–1170. [Google Scholar]
- Habib, I.; Berkvens, D.; de Zutter, L.; Dierick, K.; Van Huffel, X.; Speybroeck, N.; Geeraerd, A.H.; Uyttendaele, M. Campylobacter contamination in broiler carcasses and correlation with slaughterhouses operational hygiene inspection. Food Microbiol. 2012, 29, 105–112. [Google Scholar]
- Stern, N.J.; Robach, M.C. Non-destructive sampling of live broiler for Campylobacter. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 1995, 4, 182–185. [Google Scholar]
- Microbiology of Food and Animal Feeding Stuffs—Horizontal Method for Detection and Enumeration of Campylobacter spp. Part 1: Detection Method; ISO 10272-1:2006; International Organization of Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
- Pless, P.; Matt, M.; Wagner, P. Evaluation of Risk Factors Associated with Campylobacter spp. in Broiler Flocks. In Proceedings of the XVth International Congress in Animal Hygiene (ISAH) Congress, Vienna, Austria, 3–7 July 2011; pp. 185–188.
© 2013 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
Share and Cite
Matt, M.; Stüger, H.P.; Pless, P. Risk Priority Number: A Measuring Instrument for Hygienic Management on Broiler Farms, Reflecting Their Campylobacter Status. Agriculture 2013, 3, 700-714. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture3040700
Matt M, Stüger HP, Pless P. Risk Priority Number: A Measuring Instrument for Hygienic Management on Broiler Farms, Reflecting Their Campylobacter Status. Agriculture. 2013; 3(4):700-714. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture3040700
Chicago/Turabian StyleMatt, Monika, Hans Peter Stüger, and Peter Pless. 2013. "Risk Priority Number: A Measuring Instrument for Hygienic Management on Broiler Farms, Reflecting Their Campylobacter Status" Agriculture 3, no. 4: 700-714. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture3040700